A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 30th 07, 10:07 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

That pesky moon of ours is simply not made of Earth, and it hasn't
even been around for all that long. (only since the last ice age this
planet is ever going to see)

When exactly did Earth obtain its seasonal tilt?
- Brad Guth

  #12  
Old July 30th 07, 10:26 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

No matters how advanced, human like DNA is going to be somewhat
physically limited to 0.1c, and even at that velocity you can't hardly
afford to alter course in order to avoid running yourself into
whatever.

Trekking through space at 0.1c doesn't exactly give us or whatever
there is of more advanced forms of life any good odds of surviving
such extended (100+ year) treks. That is unless using an icy proto-
planet or icy proto-moon as their interstellar craft, whereas even if
it's velocity is relatively **** poor, at least you'll get to survive,
or on behalf of those created along the way might get a whole lot
better chance of their surviving upon whatever final encounter
accomplishes that initial migration goal of setting up camp around a
better star that's not binary, going red giant or otherwise
imploding.
- Brad Guth

  #13  
Old July 30th 07, 11:53 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
Einar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,219
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox


Joe Strout wrote:
In article . com,
Einar wrote:

wrote:
snipsnipsnip

On the lack of observed alien civilization, we need to remember that
the universe is still pretty young. Sure, 13 billion years sounds a
real lot, but remember if we subtract 3 billion years that leaves 10
billion. The point is, it?s taken life here about that time to evolve
intelligent life. While that might take shorter time ellsewhere, one
has to remember that evolution of life from bacteria is not simple and
unlikelly to take a short time.


This is missing the point. The time from the beginning of the Universe,
to the formation of a technological civilization, should take the form
of a normal distribution (i.e. bell curve), as pretty much any other
natural process does, due to the central limit theorem. If our
civilization is average (i.e. by the Copernican principle), then the
mean of this distribution is somewhere around the present. That means
that about half of the civilizations that will ever arise, arose before
us; and half will arise after us.

Now, we don't know what the standard deviation of this distribution is,
but we can make some guesses by looking at our history. How tightly
constrained was the development of civilization just now, given our 4.5
GY history? The answer appears to be, not very. Some really pivotal
moments in evolution, like the CretaceousTertiary extinction event, were
the result of highly random processes (a major impact event in this
case) which could have just as easily happened much sooner or later. So
the standard deviation is probably hundreds of millions of years at
least.

But with a standard deviation that high, and given that there are over
200 billion stars in the galaxy, there would necessarily be some
outliers to the population who happened to evolve very much earlier than
the rest of the population -- even at 3 sigma (standard deviations) away
from the mean, you'll find 0.37% of the population, which would be 540
million civilizations, half of which evolved earlier than the mean by
three sigma. Even if most of those stars can never support life, the
numbers (of both stars and years) is so large that it's very hard to
avoid the conclusion that the first civilization must almost certainly
arise a billion years or more before the mean.

This, combined with the observation that it takes only a few hundred
million years (after the development of space colonization) to settle
the whole galaxy, presents Fermi's paradox.

There are darn few parameters you can tweak in this analysis that make
much difference. The only escape I see is to assume that planets where
civilization can arise are very, VERY rare, so that the total population
size is not in the billions but perhaps in the thousands. Of course,
even with N=1000, there should be at least one civilization that
develops at least three sigma before the mean. So we have to further
assume that we are NOT an average observer, but are one of the first
civilizations to arise, maybe even the very first. Otherwise, we would
have arisen in an already-settled galaxy, and this does not appear to be
the case.

But of course, that makes a philosopher of science uncomfortable as
well. The odds of us, as a civilization, happening to be the first are
quite low. Moreover, if there are eventually going to be many orders of
magnitude more people, spread throughout the galaxy and over millions or
billions of years, why do you and I happen to be born into this time,
when there are fewer than 10 billion of us, all cooped up on one planet,
and within a few hundred thousand years of the birth of civilization?
The odds against THAT boggle the mind.

The most logical explanation is that all civilizations, including ours,
destroy themselves (or are destroyed) before interstellar colonization
begins. But, despite the logic of it, I find I can't accept that. So,
I'm left befuddled, with no neat solution. I consider this one of the
great mysteries of our time, right up there with the nature of
consciousness.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/


I remember a short story written by Asimov "The Gentle Vultures (Dec
1957)" aliens have been observing us from a secret base on the Moon.
They have been vaiting for us to commit a nuclear harakiry, as all
competitive species they have observed do. In Asimovīs story though
they are getting baffled, as nuclear war appears not to be happening
despite the precense of nuclear arms and an obvious ongoing pace of
weapons building. They decide to abduct a human in one of theyr flying
saucers, well they ought not to A wonderfully witty story.

Now, the numbers are indeed bafflling. Stars may be as many as 400.000
million. In addition, brown dvarfes have only recently been proven to
exchist, and if it holds for them as well that smaller stars appear to
be more numerous than big, then theyīll be quite numerous indeed, and
at the very least some of them will have orbiting planets. We can
quite comfortably assume that numbers of planets exceed the numbers of
stars in the Milky way. Yeah, the odds indeed do boggle the mind

It appears though we can cut down the likelly numbers of planets
considerably. Whole areas of the Milky Way appear to be too hostile
for life due to frequency of dangerous stellar events. Older stars
appear also to contain to litle amount of heavy materials making rocky
planets propably rare around them. Only certain types of stars appear
to be suitable. Majority of planets appear to be gasgigants. It may
have required a chance event, i.e. nearby supernova blast, at the
right time, i.e when the major planets were already around and Jubiter
had not drifted far enough invards to eject all the rocky planets
orbiting inside of it, to blast away the rotating disc of matter
around the Sun. Such fortunate circumstances may be rare, thus systems
that resemble ours, i.e. with a big gasgigants orbiting far enough to
give orbiting space for a rocky planet at the right distance from its
stars. We may though still be talking about thousands of candidate
planets.

I think we have to assume that we are among the first civilizations in
the Milky Way. It indeed appears that development path for life has
been relativelly easy. There is also the effect of the Moon to
consider, and what an unlikelly thing it appears to be, but itīs
reasonable to assume that itīs precense has speed up the development
of dry-land-life as the tidal areas offer convenient grounds for life
to gradually adapt to the ravages of operating on dry land. So yeah,
we indeed may be among the earliest.

There is also one other thing, but one fact is that animals with an
internal skeleton have only happened once on this world. There are a
number of other basic types which came to be around the Cambrian
period but only one of the did lead to us. Now, while one needs to be
cauthious to extrapolate from a single example, i.e. Earth, this still
might mean that internal skeleton was a chancy event. Now, one knows
not what impact it would have had on life if animals with internal
skeleton would never have happened. But maybe the development path for
animals with an internal skeleton towards intelligence is relativelly
an easy one.

Another thing which has only happened once, is that many civilizations
of Man have risen and fallen, but only once has development lead to an
industrial and scientific revolution. I think therefore it may be rash
to assume that to be a natural development. Itīs quite possible to
imagine, say for every 10 species that happen in the Galaxy at least 9
linger indefinitelly at a preindustrial state of development. Who,
knows in the future we may find many examples where alien
civilizations for one reason or another, never became starfaring and
simply went extinct in the fullness of time...perhaps a more appealing
alternative to the idea that they all destroy themselves.

Cheers, Einar

  #14  
Old July 30th 07, 11:59 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
Einar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,219
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox


Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Joe Strout writes:

The most logical explanation is that all civilizations, including ours,
destroy themselves (or are destroyed) before interstellar colonization
begins. But, despite the logic of it, I find I can't accept that. So,
I'm left befuddled, with no neat solution. I consider this one of the
great mysteries of our time, right up there with the nature of
consciousness.


I think the most logical explanation is that "interstellar colonization"
has a pretty low priority for most or even all civilizations. It just
doesn't happen. They struggle to colonize their own planet, have a short
boom period, run out of natural resources and then either go extinct or
struggle on to organize long-term modest surviving and do away with
"colonization".


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


I donīt think that is really a whole lot more satisfying an idea.
Unless theyr system outside theyr planet was very poor in useful
materials, they would have at least been able to create spacecolonies
within theyr system, making use of those additional resources to
maintain theyr level of civilization for quite a wile.

Cheers, Einar

  #15  
Old July 31st 07, 04:53 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 972
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

In article .com,
Einar wrote:

I think we have to assume that we are among the first civilizations in
the Milky Way. It indeed appears that development path for life has
been relativelly easy. There is also the effect of the Moon to
consider, and what an unlikelly thing it appears to be, but it?s
reasonable to assume that it?s precense has speed up the development
of dry-land-life as the tidal areas offer convenient grounds for life
to gradually adapt to the ravages of operating on dry land. So yeah,
we indeed may be among the earliest.


I tend to agree. I think when we finally get out there and start
exploring other star systems (first with remote observation, of course),
we're going to find most of them completely lifeless, and a small number
of worlds with life that never got past the single-cell stage. If we
are the first, then (because of the standard distribution) we must be
WAY ahead of the mean -- probably way ahead of even the runner-up, by
perhaps a hundred million years or more.

The alternative is that we aren't the first, but are in some sort of
nature preserve. But this is a little like saying that God created the
Earth 10,000 years ago, but left around (literally) mountains of
geological evidence to fool us into thinking that it's 4.5 GY old. It's
just not parsimonious.

There is also one other thing, but one fact is that animals with an
internal skeleton have only happened once on this world. There are a
number of other basic types which came to be around the Cambrian
period but only one of the did lead to us. Now, while one needs to be
cauthious to extrapolate from a single example, i.e. Earth, this still
might mean that internal skeleton was a chancy event. Now, one knows
not what impact it would have had on life if animals with internal
skeleton would never have happened. But maybe the development path for
animals with an internal skeleton towards intelligence is relativelly
an easy one.


Maybe, though that seems a little far-fetch to me. Cephalopods are
quite smart, and good manipulators; I could imagine them developing
culture and civilization as well as some furry rodent-like critter.
Though maybe we'll find that ocean creatures just never make the
technological leap. Unfortunately, answering this may take a
near-complete galactic survey -- a very long-term project!

Another thing which has only happened once, is that many civilizations
of Man have risen and fallen, but only once has development lead to an
industrial and scientific revolution.


No, I don't think that's accurate. Human cultural evolution has
proceeded in fits and starts, and in different rates at different
places, but has pretty much always been forward. The "falls" you refer
to are mere blips on a strong and continuous exponential trend, and were
usually only falls for one of the cultures involved -- for the
conquerers, it was a step up.

It?s quite possible to
imagine, say for every 10 species that happen in the Galaxy at least 9
linger indefinitelly at a preindustrial state of development.


Maybe, but I really doubt it. Once you have cultural evolution
outstripping genetic evolution, I think things are going to proceed
rapidly and inevitably pretty much as they have for us. Memes evolve
just like genes, only much faster. The scientific method is a powerful
one because it works (it produces useful results), which is why it has
caught on pretty much universally here (right-wing nut jobs aside), and
it would do the same in any alien culture too. That will ultimately
lead to labor-saving devices, more intensive energy use, etc.

The idea of an "industrial revolution" is again an oversimplification of
history. In reality, it was much more continuous like that, a long
stream of ideas and inventions feeding upon one another, each step
enabling the next steps. It's been an exponential curve, pretty much
any way you measure it, which produces the illusion of little progress
when you're living through it, but extremely rapid progress when you
look back (or forward) on it.

Who, knows in the future we may find many examples where alien
civilizations for one reason or another, never became starfaring and
simply went extinct in the fullness of time...perhaps a more appealing
alternative to the idea that they all destroy themselves.


Seems equivalent to me. You colonize space, or you die. Long term, a
failure to colonize space is no different from blowing yourself up.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/
  #16  
Old July 31st 07, 09:16 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

On Jul 30, 8:53 pm, Joe Strout wrote:

The alternative is that we aren't the first, but are in some sort of
nature preserve. But this is a little like saying that God created the
Earth 10,000 years ago, but left around (literally) mountains of
geological evidence to fool us into thinking that it's 4.5 GY old. It's
just not parsimonious.


So, you don't believe that any of Earth's humanity will ever reach
another viable planet or moon. How entirely odd to think that our
ongoing form of intelligent design is not even remotely possible of
ever capable of contributing to or otherwise affecting the realm of
another world.

Why is it always all or absolutely nothing with you silly folks?
- Brad Guth

  #17  
Old July 31st 07, 09:37 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

On Jul 30, 3:53 pm, Einar wrote:
Who, knows in the future we may find many examples where alien
civilizations for one reason or another, never became starfaring and
simply went extinct in the fullness of time...perhaps a more appealing
alternative to the idea that they all destroy themselves.


I tend to agree, that most other worlds hosting truly intelligent life
need not be into going places other than within their own terrestrial
realm.

Never fear, as soon as possible we'll teach those passive aliens to
fight to their death over fossil and yellowcake fuels, if need be
we'll even teach them how to lie each of their little butts off, about
all those other Muslim aliens hiding WMD that they plan to utilize
just as soon as we're not looking.

Besides, why should Earth be the one and only faith-based screwed up
planet in the universe, that's also stuck with the likes of ENRON,
Exxon and that of our very own resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), as
being the best ever born-again Jewish puppet in town, that which also
needed Botox injections in order to get rid of his silly facial
smirk.
- Brad Guth

  #18  
Old July 31st 07, 01:37 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
Einar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,219
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox


Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,
Einar wrote:

I think we have to assume that we are among the first civilizations in
the Milky Way. It indeed appears that development path for life has
been relativelly easy. There is also the effect of the Moon to
consider, and what an unlikelly thing it appears to be, but it?s
reasonable to assume that it?s precense has speed up the development
of dry-land-life as the tidal areas offer convenient grounds for life
to gradually adapt to the ravages of operating on dry land. So yeah,
we indeed may be among the earliest.


I tend to agree. I think when we finally get out there and start
exploring other star systems (first with remote observation, of course),
we're going to find most of them completely lifeless, and a small number
of worlds with life that never got past the single-cell stage. If we
are the first, then (because of the standard distribution) we must be
WAY ahead of the mean -- probably way ahead of even the runner-up, by
perhaps a hundred million years or more.

The alternative is that we aren't the first, but are in some sort of
nature preserve. But this is a little like saying that God created the
Earth 10,000 years ago, but left around (literally) mountains of
geological evidence to fool us into thinking that it's 4.5 GY old. It's
just not parsimonious.

There is also one other thing, but one fact is that animals with an
internal skeleton have only happened once on this world. There are a
number of other basic types which came to be around the Cambrian
period but only one of the did lead to us. Now, while one needs to be
cauthious to extrapolate from a single example, i.e. Earth, this still
might mean that internal skeleton was a chancy event. Now, one knows
not what impact it would have had on life if animals with internal
skeleton would never have happened. But maybe the development path for
animals with an internal skeleton towards intelligence is relativelly
an easy one.


Maybe, though that seems a little far-fetch to me. Cephalopods are
quite smart, and good manipulators; I could imagine them developing
culture and civilization as well as some furry rodent-like critter.
Though maybe we'll find that ocean creatures just never make the
technological leap. Unfortunately, answering this may take a
near-complete galactic survey -- a very long-term project!


We the surface devellers do have one advantage the ability to observe
the stars with our own eyes.

Another thing which has only happened once, is that many civilizations
of Man have risen and fallen, but only once has development lead to an
industrial and scientific revolution.


No, I don't think that's accurate. Human cultural evolution has
proceeded in fits and starts, and in different rates at different
places, but has pretty much always been forward. The "falls" you refer
to are mere blips on a strong and continuous exponential trend, and were
usually only falls for one of the cultures involved -- for the
conquerers, it was a step up.


In the history of the Mediterranean civilization that was indeed the
case, But the combination of the fall of the Roman empire, as well as
a very destructive invation by the Huns, appears to have resulted in a
the steepest fall in history. About China and India, both had achiewed
substantially the level of civilization they achiewed before the fall
of the Roman empire.

It?s quite possible to
imagine, say for every 10 species that happen in the Galaxy at least 9
linger indefinitelly at a preindustrial state of development.


Maybe, but I really doubt it. Once you have cultural evolution
outstripping genetic evolution, I think things are going to proceed
rapidly and inevitably pretty much as they have for us. Memes evolve
just like genes, only much faster. The scientific method is a powerful
one because it works (it produces useful results), which is why it has
caught on pretty much universally here (right-wing nut jobs aside), and
it would do the same in any alien culture too. That will ultimately
lead to labor-saving devices, more intensive energy use, etc.

The idea of an "industrial revolution" is again an oversimplification of
history. In reality, it was much more continuous like that, a long
stream of ideas and inventions feeding upon one another, each step
enabling the next steps. It's been an exponential curve, pretty much
any way you measure it, which produces the illusion of little progress
when you're living through it, but extremely rapid progress when you
look back (or forward) on it.


I think it was very important the idea that christianity invented that
of the separation of the realms, i.e. that there were activities that
were nonreligious. The ancient world lacked this distinction, hence
religious activities and ideas permeated all types of activity. In the
hierarchy of gods there was a god for every realm of activity. This
appears to be the single largest difference between christianity and
islam, in islam all activities belong to god. While the church may
have been selfishly reserving religious activities for itself solelly,
in order to maximize its own power, this created more opportunities
for thought, speculation about things, free of religious thinking.

This is why I think itīs no coincidence that scientific thought was
gradually able to develope within the christian countries. However,
that does not yet necessarilly give an explanation for the industrial
revolution.


The ancient Greegs knew about steampower, yet did not develope it.
Same about the Chinese, not enough is known about wether that was the
case in India. The Roman civilization inherited all the knowledge og
the Greegs, and was much richer to boot. But while it appears that
development of industry would have been possible, it didnīt happen.

People have been exploring it why this happened in Britain in the end.
What was so special about Britain that impetus eventually developed to
create a practical steam engine?

In the ancient cases of models of steam powered experiments, there was
clearly allways lacking reliable and efficient means of transforming
the energy in the steam into logomotive power. It was the invention of
the moving piston which was the big break. That took decates to be
developed.

In Britain uses were found for the extremelly inefficient early tipes
of piston arrangement, i.e. to pump water from coalmines. By that time
Britain no longer had enough forests to fuel those engines, so only in
the very immediate viscinity of coal mines were they at all practical.
Over time the engines were improved, and around the beginning of the
19th. century the steam engine became practical for other
applications.

Britain also was by that time a world power, able to import and export
to allmost everywhere. So circumstances appear in many respects to
have been very advantagous in Britain, more so than anywhere ellse and
also more so than at any time before. Sounds bit chancy to me.

Who, knows in the future we may find many examples where alien
civilizations for one reason or another, never became starfaring and
simply went extinct in the fullness of time...perhaps a more appealing
alternative to the idea that they all destroy themselves.


Seems equivalent to me. You colonize space, or you die. Long term, a
failure to colonize space is no different from blowing yourself up.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/


I guess you are right, that if you donīt colonize you go extinct so it
amounts to the same thing.

Cheers, Einar

  #19  
Old July 31st 07, 02:19 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

On 30 Jul, 18:42, Joe Strout wrote:

You are indeed correct, but how do you know the distribution is
Copernican. Why not a race? A race to me seems eminanly logical but so
far nobody has commented on it.


It's implied in what I've written; somebody (or a very small number of
somebodies) is going to evolve a technological civilization first, and
by hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years before the average
civilization. They will then proceed to colonize the galaxy, with the
result that the vast majority of civilizations will arise to find
themselves in an already-settled galaxy. Call this a race if you like,
but it's an extremely unfair one, since most likely it will be over
before the #2 civilization even appears.

If a race is indeed true there are
consequences in terms of how we should act.


Like what? We're talking about things on the timescale of hundreds of
millions of years. What we do in the next century or two isn't going to
make any difference.

Statistically the most likely time for another civilization to appear
is now. Geological time indeed counts in billions. When I say
statistcally now, what I am saying is this. You habe a box a billion
years wide. You place a civilization in it. Now is as likely as any
other time.

In fact if evolution is indeed as insensitive to special conditions as
you are claiming. I will say might be so, might not then 2 hr 6 min
will ensure the galaxy. 2hr 7 min will mean we are also rans.
1) We need to know how close to us other civilizations are. We are
running 42km and we need to look back and see where the other
competitors are. A 1km telescope - figure admittedly pluced out of the
air.


This seems rather pointless. All indications are that there is NOBODY
else out there. So, either we're in some sort of nature preserve and
the ancients are intentionally hiding from us, or for some weird reason,
we happen to be the first, and the galaxy is ours.


All the indications are that there is none more advanced than we are.
SETI has indeed not seen Radio Reloj. So nobody is at the same level
as us. It is possible that there are civilizations (allowing for speed
of light) that are 20-300 years ahead of us or 100+ yars behind. SETI/
Radio Reloj sets these limits. 200 years is the limit for VN probes.
W3e can see none have set out since we would see the laser signitures.
In fact the 300 figure assumes a Forward type probe with a clear laser
signiture.

2) We do need to build interstellar VN probes. This to an extent
represents the tape.


I'm no fan of VN probes. But we'll be out there ourselves soon enough,
if indeed the galaxy isn't settled already (as appears to be the case).

This is to some extent of the nature of a BTW. Genetic markers on
mammalian species show that the main mammal types evolved in the early
to middle Cretaceous. Fossils BTW are quite rare because fossilization
is a rare process. Genetic markers are in fact better in showing when
Evolution took place.


Thus the Cretacious/Teriary extinction was less relevant than has been
supposed up to now.


Still quite relevant, though. Whenever there is a mass extinction, it's
followed by an explosion of new species. All evidence I know of
supports the rough approximation that life in the Cretacious had gotten
stuck into a bit of a rut (a local maximum, in optimization terms), and
the impact event certainly knocked it out of that.

The mammals were still evolving and dinosaurs were in fact getting
more intelligent. But I will agree, on our analogy the extiction was
probably worth a kilometer or two.

But of course, that makes a philosopher of science uncomfortable as
well. The odds of us, as a civilization, happening to be the first are
quite low.


In a race situation the odds are high. If we were not the first we
would all be Centurians. Alpha Centurians would have terraformed the
solar system, and we would be in a park on Earth ... if that.


Clearly, the park (if we're in one) extends beyond the Earth; we see no
signs of life anywhere in the solar system. Perhaps our whole local
cluster of stars is part of the park, or maybe it extends only to the
edge of our solar system.

However, I think the Copernican objection applies regardless. Why do we
happen to be humans, and not Centurians or whatever? If the galaxy has
been settled for hundreds of millions of years -- as would be the case
if we're not the first -- then any random observer would very likely be
one of that ancient race, not some simian on some backwater world that
still thinks digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

Why is Los Angeles called Los Angeles and not Fu Ming or some Chinese
name? The Spanish won the race, or rather they won a sprint finish. In
1421 the Spanish were not leading the field.


- Ian Parker

  #20  
Old July 31st 07, 02:33 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.astro.seti
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

On 31 Jul, 13:37, Einar wrote:

It?s quite possible to
imagine, say for every 10 species that happen in the Galaxy at least 9
linger indefinitelly at a preindustrial state of development.


Maybe, but I really doubt it. Once you have cultural evolution
outstripping genetic evolution, I think things are going to proceed
rapidly and inevitably pretty much as they have for us. Memes evolve
just like genes, only much faster. The scientific method is a powerful
one because it works (it produces useful results), which is why it has
caught on pretty much universally here (right-wing nut jobs aside), and
it would do the same in any alien culture too. That will ultimately
lead to labor-saving devices, more intensive energy use, etc.


The idea of an "industrial revolution" is again an oversimplification of
history. In reality, it was much more continuous like that, a long
stream of ideas and inventions feeding upon one another, each step
enabling the next steps. It's been an exponential curve, pretty much
any way you measure it, which produces the illusion of little progress
when you're living through it, but extremely rapid progress when you
look back (or forward) on it.


I think it was very important the idea that christianity invented that
of the separation of the realms, i.e. that there were activities that
were nonreligious. The ancient world lacked this distinction, hence
religious activities and ideas permeated all types of activity. In the
hierarchy of gods there was a god for every realm of activity. This
appears to be the single largest difference between christianity and
islam, in islam all activities belong to god. While the church may
have been selfishly reserving religious activities for itself solelly,
in order to maximize its own power, this created more opportunities
for thought, speculation about things, free of religious thinking.

This is why I think itīs no coincidence that scientific thought was
gradually able to develope within the christian countries. However,
that does not yet necessarilly give an explanation for the industrial
revolution.

The ancient Greegs knew about steampower, yet did not develope it.
Same about the Chinese, not enough is known about wether that was the
case in India. The Roman civilization inherited all the knowledge og
the Greegs, and was much richer to boot. But while it appears that
development of industry would have been possible, it didnīt happen.

There has been a great deal of discussion about why the industrial
revolution took place. I think that theoretical knowledge had more
effect than people suppose.

James Watt was at Glasgow university and he had to get a Newcoman
engine working. He found that the engine was very inefficient. What
happenned was that when water was poured onto the cylinders the water
boiled at a lower lemperature because of the change in pressure. He
went to see Joseph Black at Edinbourgh who told him about this. Watt
then designed an egnine with valves where the steam pressure, and
hence water temperature was kept up. So knowledge of thermodynamics
may have been more inportant than is generally realized.

Christian civilization did indeed have this spirit of enquiry and
managed to acquire considerable theoretical knowledge. I think you are
probably right there.

Britain was successfuul because she had a mercantile economy. Other
countries went in much more for state control, particularly overseas.

People have been exploring it why this happened in Britain in the end.
What was so special about Britain that impetus eventually developed to
create a practical steam engine?

In the ancient cases of models of steam powered experiments, there was
clearly allways lacking reliable and efficient means of transforming
the energy in the steam into logomotive power. It was the invention of
the moving piston which was the big break. That took decates to be
developed.

In Britain uses were found for the extremelly inefficient early tipes
of piston arrangement, i.e. to pump water from coalmines. By that time
Britain no longer had enough forests to fuel those engines, so only in
the very immediate viscinity of coal mines were they at all practical.
Over time the engines were improved, and around the beginning of the
19th. century the steam engine became practical for other
applications.

Britain also was by that time a world power, able to import and export
to allmost everywhere. So circumstances appear in many respects to
have been very advantagous in Britain, more so than anywhere ellse and
also more so than at any time before. Sounds bit chancy to me.

- Ian Parker

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox [email protected] Policy 827 September 4th 07 06:26 PM
Missing Earth's sial explains Fermi paradox Andrew Nowicki SETI 44 May 1st 07 05:47 AM
Missing Earth's sial explains Fermi paradox Andrew Nowicki Policy 43 April 9th 07 09:48 PM
Why is 70% of Earth's sial missing? Andrew Nowicki Astronomy Misc 15 April 7th 07 08:10 PM
Fermi Paradox localhost SETI 0 August 10th 03 12:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.